Karnataka Court July 1975 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Jhamatmal Sons Vs. Fatima Bi and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-17-1975
Reported in: 1975(2)KarLJ264
1. The respondents are decree-holders. They as owners of non-residential premises situate in the Civil Station, Bangalore, filed a petition for eviction in H. R C. 188 of 1969 in the Court of the Principal Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, against 'M/s. Jhamatmal Sons' under Section 21 Clause (1) sub-clause (h) of the Karnataka House Rent Control Act, alleging that the respondent to the petition above said is a tenant under them. The eviction petition was contested by Smt. Devi Bai, the widow of Jhamatmal. Jhamatmal admittedly died in the year 1964. The H. R. C, Petition was filed on 11th April, 1969. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the firm she stated that they have been tenants since the year 1948, that they have been running business as photographers, that the said business is their only source of business, that Jhamatmal Sons is a family business, it was set up in the year 1948 and that the firm has an established business in photography. The petition was dismiss...
iramma and ors. Vs. Chandamma and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-16-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant62; 1975(2)KarLJ282
ORDER1. This revision petition is by the applicants in I. A. II of R. A. No. 53 of 1974 before the Principal Civil Judge at Gulbarga. They are aggrieved by the order made on the said application, whereby their prayer for their being brought on record as co-appellants (co-plaintiffs in the court below) was refused.2. The relevant facts briefly are as follows :-Respondent 1 herein (plaintiff in the trial court) filed O. S. No. 61 of 1971 on the file of the Munsiff at Chincholi for a decree of declaration of title and injunction. In the plaint she had clearly averred that she was suing not only for herself but also on behalf of her daughters, who are the applicants in I. A. II aforesaid, as they were all co-owners of the suit property. The suit was resisted by respondent 2 herein on various grounds which it is unnecessary to particularise. Which is relevant is that no objection on the ground of non jointer of parties had been raised by way of defence. The trial court dealt with all the is...
Ahmed Khan Vs. Mohamad Khasim Sab
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-14-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant13; 1975(2)KarLJ241
1. The respondent-decree-holder filed the suit, O. S. No. 317 of 1964 against the appellant-judgment-debtor for declaration of title, for recovery of arrears of rent and for possession of the suit schedule site described as Site No. 1 in Sy. No. 38 of Anehalli Inam Village situated within the municipal limits of Bhadravathi Town The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff's appeal was allowed by the first appellate court in R. A. No. 140 of 65 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Shimoga. Thereafter the respondent took out the present execution petition. The appellant contended that the decree obtained by the respondent is a nullity on the ground that the Munsiff Court, Bhadravathi, did not have jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction, since the subject-matter of the suit was governed by the provisions of the Mysore House Rent, Control Act, 1961. The execution court held that the Rent Control Act applied to the subject-matter of the suit, but that since the judgme...
The State of Karnataka Vs. M. Shivappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: ILR1976KAR621; 1976(1)KarLJ241
Chandrashekhar, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of Jagannatha Shetty, J., in Writ Petition No. 3807 of 1973. The respondent herein was the petitioner therein He had applied for a licence to run a touring cinema in the site bearing Survey N, 292 in Kadugodi village. On inspection of that site, the District Magistrate, the licencing authority, found that the proposed cinema would be within a range of 162 feet from the hospital in that village and that hence (lie condition prescribed in Rule 27 (1) (i) (iv) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) that the distance between a cinema site and any public hospital or a private nursing home should not be less than 50 metres, would be violated. The District Magistrate declined to grant the licence.2. The order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant the licence was impugned in the writ petition. It was contended before the learned single judge that the minimum distance of 50 metres pr...
Arjandas Jhamatmal Sadarangani Vs. Fatima Bi and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-11-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant64; 1975(2)KarLJ253
ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of an application made in O. S. No. 322/1974 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Station, Bangalore, for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents, 1 and 2 from executing the order for eviction passed under the House Rent Control Act. The trial Court refused to pass an order of temporary injunction and that order has been affirmed on appeal to the Court of the civil Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore in M. A. No. 10/74. Hence this revision petition by the plaintiff-petitioner who has been aggrieved by the order of the Courts below.2. Briefly stated, the facts are-The suit relates to certain business premises in the City of Bangalore. The landlord filed an eviction petition in H. R. C. 188/69 in the Court of the Munsiff, Civil Station. The party respondent in the H. R. C. case has been described as Jhamatmal Sons. Notice of that petition was served on respondent 4. The mother of respondent 4 however, contested the proc...
V.A. Nadkarni and anr. Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant141; 1975(2)KarLJ464
ORDER1. This Writ Petition is filled by two petitioners. The first petitioner was formerly the President of the Taluk Development Board, Bhatkal. The second petitioner was the Chairman of the Kumta Agricultural Produce Market Committee. In this writ petition, they have questioned the validity of the notification dated 18-6-1975 issued by the State Government under Section 145(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dividing Kumta Market Area into two Market Areas and of the two notifications dated 18-8-1975 issued under Section 145(2)(a) of the Act constituting market committees for the two new Market Areas.2. There was a Market Area established under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, comprising of Kumta, Ankola and Honnavar Taluks and Bhatkal Petha of the District of North Kanara. The 2nd petitioner was the Chairman of the said Market Committee. Being desirous of dividing the said market area into...
Hanumakka Vs. Dase Gowda and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-10-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant30; 1975(2)KarLJ261
G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff, arises out of her suit for partition and separate possession of a one half share in the Plaint schedule Properties and future mesne Profits which has been dismissed by the Court below on the around that Section 8 of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act. 1933 (Mysore Act X of 1933) is a bar to the plaintiff enforcing her right by way of a suit for partition.2. The material facts. so far as they are relevant for the purose of this appeal. lie in a very narrow compass. The genealogy of the family of the Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 is given in the Plaint. Dasegowda is the common ancestor. He had two sons by name Narase Gowda and ThimmeGowda. Plaintiff Hanumakka is the widow of the said Thimmegowda Gowda. who died in the year 1962. long after the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Act'), came into force. Narase Gowda had three sons by name Mudligirigowda. Dasegowda and Lakshminarasegowda. Mu...
Second Income-tax Officer, Company Circle, Bangalore and anr. Vs. Stum ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: [1977]106ITR399(KAR); [1977]106ITR399(Karn)
Srinivasa Iyengar, J.1. These appeals are against the common judgment in W. Ps. Nos. 3447, 3448 and 3578 of 1973 and 1121, 2551 and 2552 of 1974, dated 13th September, 1974, by which the notices issued under sections 8/16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the appellants, were quashed. The facts and circumstances in which the notices had been issued being the same in all the cases, it is sufficient to state the facts relating to W. P. No. 3578 of 1973. 2. M/s. Stumpp. Schuele & Somappa Private Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1971-72 (previous year ending December 31, 1970), assessment was made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, after the enquiry of December 31, 1971, on a total income of Rs. 26,16,490. Based on this assessment, surtax was computed on December 13, 1971. The Income-tax Officer modified the income-tax assessment by an order dated September 12,...
Dundappa Laxmappa and anr. Vs. Mallappa Bhimappa Bolanatti
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-03-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant39; 1975(2)KarLJ239
ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of Civil P. C. arises out of an order made by the Principal Munsiff, Gokak, allowing amendment to convert a suit for injunction into one for partition and possession.2. The suit filed by the respondent was for an injunction in respect of land in Block No. 65 measuring 10 acres 20 guntas situated in Shindikurbot village. The case of the plaintiff was that he was in joint possession with the defendants and the defendants are interfering with his possession and trying to exclude him thereof. He obtained an ad interim injunction, but the same was vacated after hearing the defendants. The plaintiff then came forward with an application to amend his plaint. He wanted to convert his suit for injunction into a suit for partition, by adding one more land and a house with movables in the plaint schedule. He claimed half share in all these properties. The defendants resisted the said application on the ground among others, that if the amendment is ...
K. Nanjundappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-02-1975
Reported in: AIR1976Kant40; 1975(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. The petitioner who is the owner of a certain piece of land situated in Kinkier Village in Gowribidanur Taluk, has filed this Writ Petition questioning the notification issued by the State Government declaring that a portion of his land is acquired for public purpose, that is, for opening a feeder channel from the river Kumudwathi to Mudigere Tank.2. The first contention urged in support of the petition is that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, is contrary to law, because the declaration is made beyond the period prescribed under Section 6 of the said Act. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Mysore Gazette on 22-4-1971. The declaration is made by the State Government on 17-4-1974. The declaration, is however, published in the Mysore Gazette on 2-5-1974. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the interval between the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) and the date ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›